In Chicago
Since the court ruled Illinois has to pass shall-issue carry, Otis McDonald is celebrating.
Chicago will fight the ruling.
Here’s the draft bill in Illinois. Already a problem in the first paragraph:
Permits the county sheriff to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to persons at least 21 years of age who meet certain requirements.
I’m pretty sure the ruling says that the law should be shall-issue. A sheriff permitting isn’t shall-issue.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
*Really* depends on the requirements for whether or not it meets shall issue standards.
In AZ you have to be 21, pass a background check, etc. to carry and we’re definitely shall issue.
If the requirements end up very vague and onerous, that’s where it goes from shall to may issue, IMO.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
It’s Shall-Issue, you missed the House Floor Amendment 2 which was adopted by voice vote.
“Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun to an applicant that meets specified qualifications, has provided the application and specified documentation, and has submitted the requisite fees. Provides that a license to carry a handgun entitles a licensee to carry a loaded handgun, either concealed or openly, on or about his or her person or in a vehicle, except in certain prohibited locations. Provides that the license shall be issued by the Department of State Police within 45 days of receipt from a sheriff and shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Provides for renewal of licenses. …”
December 13th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Also it’s a parking lot carry bill and overrides home rule, Chicago would be barred from enacting its own policy if it passes with 6 more votes than the last attempt.
Many of the negative compromises may actually be stricken from the reintroduced bill now that they have the hammer of FOID = Constitutional Carry in 180 days.
“House Floor Amendment No. 3
Changes references from “handgun” and “weapon” to “concealed firearm”. Provides that a concealed firearm licensee who is prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in certain places shall be permitted to store that handgun or ammunition out of plain sight in a locked vehicle or within a locked compartment or container within his or her vehicle. Provides that a licensee shall not be in violation of the Family and Personal Protection Act while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the prohibited premises if the handgun is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of the Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law. Adds an immediate effective date to the bill.”
December 13th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
A bow and hurrah to Matthew.
December 13th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Matthew, Quinn is a [female special place]. Will he sign it?
And it’s not Chicago, guys. Illinois is a big place. The biggest part of the bill may be the pre-emption provision.
December 13th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
nk,
I just have a job that lets me obsessively read -all- the gun blogs.
I think the super-majority required to pass it over the home-rule provisions are sufficient to override a veto, but I’m not sure.
After all, the IL legislature overrode his recent attempt to amendatorily veto the “ship ammo to your house” bill, and I find it hard to believe the Chicago contingent didn’t unilaterally vote on the “nay” side of that one as well.
December 13th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Hey all,
That’s the OLD bill from back before the ruling came down. It had a metric buttload of compromises in it to attempt to win enough votes to get over the veto hump. It failed.
The NRA rep and the House pointman on this have both said this bill is old news. The new one won’t have nearly as many compromises. It is not published yet. The session starts in January.
As long as the state does not get an en banc delay, the new bill should be more fun to read than the ruling itself.
So don’t get worked up over this watered-down bill from March. The new one is supposed to much more to our liking.
December 13th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Me, I’m pulling for the back-and-forth wrangling in the legislature to run out the clock and suddenly FOID=CCW.
December 14th, 2012 at 3:19 am
Uh, I lived north of Chicago in the early 90s. I was specifically told by a senior police officer that they could not issue me a permit, but not to worry about it. He said my “appearance” would keep me out of trouble.
Yeah, right! It didn’t seem all that “black and white” to me. I asked, for example: “What happens once I have to use it?” I left as soon as possible. Yet years later, I received notice of infringement, with demand for payment and penalties for not renewing my Illinois FOID. My letter informing them I was no longer a resident of their prison camp was not all that polite.
Given the state’s history of apparent illiteracy, in that they are repeatedly unable to comprehend the plain language meaning of federal laws which override their personal desires, I’m waiting to hear about this:
When will they issue rules on reciprocity? How much longer will I have to put up with their unlawful restrictions of my 2nd and 14th Amednment guaranteed right? And my constitutionally-guaranteed and Supreme Court recognized right to travel freely?
How much longer before we take our rights back?
December 14th, 2012 at 10:58 am
I concur with Matthew, it’s definitely shall issue. The bill description is may issue but the actual statute doesn’t give the sheriff any discretion to deny the permits if the person meets the criteria.
December 14th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Re Sheriffs: Ohio uses the Sheriffs to issue the Licenses, but we are a “Shall Issue” State. It’s just easier to “Go Local” than trying to send everything down to Columbus and waiting on the Mail. Also, we can use the next door County Sheriffs Office. Helps to get around those Hacks who will only accept Applications for 30 minutes once a month, like Cuyahoga County (Cleveland Area) was threatening to do.
December 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Relax, this Chicago-land, remember? Illinois is ruled by Chicago like a ho is ruled by a pimp. Which means, of course, that the law will be passed in Springfield, but it will be written to satisfy the Chicago establishment.
So, we may see the following:
(1) $500 initial fee, with a $200 annual renewal fee (Illinois is broke, you know);
(2) They’ll define “sensitive places” so strictly that the list of off-limits places will be a mile long. Yet, it will still be A-OK with Heller (Heller left the definition of “sensitive places” up to the states.). You’ll be able to carry on your front porch, but that’ll be it. They could probably just borrow NC or FL’s list, and add just a few more places.
(3) They’ll throw misdemeanors in as a “disqualifying criterion”: “You got a parking ticket 15 years ago; no permit for you!”
Chicago pols are nothing if not creative when it comes to f***ing over the proles, so don’t get your hopes up.
December 14th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Mike, I kind of hope that teh Chicago Machine tries toplay that game.
Pissing all over federal judges and telling them it’ll really bring out the gloss in tehir hair is a damned good way to get the judge to come back and say, “No, moron. Since you’re apparantly illiterate, you’ll do it THIS way,” and proceed to strike out everything you inserted to nullify or limit the bill.